The Obama victory comes after a long and merciless effort by both sides. That said, there are plenty of winners and losers but among the latter is Wall Street.

Wall Street all but abandoned Obama in his effort to get re-elected. What started out as a healthy relationship between the White House and much of Wall Street turned ugly fairly quickly. Why? Big commercial and investment banks did not appreciate the president's bank-bashing rhetoric. And of course Obama's Wall Street reform legislation didn't help the relationship either.

As a result,Wall Street wanted Obama out and Romney in. How badly? Just take a quick look at the top contributors to the Romney campaign: $994k from Goldman Sachs, $922k from Bank of America, $827k from Morgan Stanley, $792k from JPMorgan Chase whose CEO frequented the White House quite often early in Obama's presidency. Nine out of ten of Romney's top contributors were financial companies like Citigroup, UBS and Wells Fargo. (For the record, those donations do not come directly from from the firms but rather their PACs, employees and owners.)

But Obama's here for another four years. So what happens to the relationship between the president and his Wall Street foes?

Bush says both sides need to hit the reset button and have a constructive conversation about how to move this country forward. Obama needs the banks and banks need Obama in order for that to happen, and both sides need to make some concessions.

For one thing, the president can't expect to leave a legacy of economic expansion--true economic expansion--without Wall Street's cooperation. "Obama needs to stop demonizing banks because you can't have a significant recovery without bank lending," Bush adds.

Much of the tension between Wall Street and Obama is the result of all financial regulation reform. That doesn't mean it should be watered down or repealed. The problem is that the very firms that are affected by the rules don't feel they are part of the process nor do they feel their voices are being heard. Whether or not that's a legit complaint it's in the administration's interest to collaborate.

For instance, Basel III rules are a major point of contention right now. The capital rules that were created in Europe are being forced on U.S. banks with many are well ahead of the 2019 deadline. Meanwhile it seems European banks are not taking the new capital rules quite so seriously. Last month the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision found the U.S. was making strides while the EU lagged behind saying it was "materially non-compliant" in its internal ratings-based approach and that the EU fell short in its definition of capital.

"We can't continue to be the paragons of virtue here while everyone else is saying 'too bad'", Bush notes.

For their part banks will have to make concessions of their own. A slow-growth economy has already its toll on bank revenue and overall growth. It's in Wall Street's best interest to help the country snap out of this rut. But it must first face the reality of the new regulatory environment. No longer can banks deliberately avoid lending while using the excuse that they don't know what the regulatory landscape will look like. The uncertainty about the next president is gone and it's time to start moving forward.

One way to do that, Bush says, is for regulators and firms to agree upon a new standard of credit lending. "There are very stringent standards for credit right now. Both sides need to figure out how tweak that and decide what's good credit and what's not," she says.

Adds Bush, "In the end no one has clean hands here but it's time for a truce because no one is benefiting from the warfare."